Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
the government, the government suggested you can have our election with them are in the class, and they did a film, and it's absolutely priceless. i mean, the parents, they didn't have to do it because the teachers were not shy to do it. they would make this mistake or that little thing and they would have this comical elements but the students got interested. they got interested. they ended up collecting a monitor. i'm how good the monitor was. but it was all right. it was all right. and so there are ways i think, which are more likely to think of that i am. of taking these different ideas and say try to settle here or try it out over there. you are building the bar, and it's true that there are, none of these things, everything has its drawbacks. move along. >> final two questions. this gentleman right here, and back their. >> ninety. i've been involved in studying practicing chinese law for the last 45 years. i just want to say on a positive note you, justice breyer and also i think others talked and plenty differently which about changing a legal culture in china. and it wanted to menti
. years that began with the 2003 recount and reended with re-election of president obama. if you could think of the adjective to describe these years what would it be? >> clearly interesting. challenging. sometimes totally frustrating. but also full of opportunities for the country. there was some good times during the twelve years laced together with some that weren't so good. 9/11, the anthrax scare. there were positive things as well, the election of president obama, i thought it was a positive statement for the country and moving forward in a way that we have tried to move forward out of face -- fiscal as by now we came out of a fiscal as by during the times. it's a hodgepodge during at love different things. i couldn't imagined to have been here during a better time. >> let me get deeper and ask you tell me what was the high point of the entire service? >> the high point was when we can work together. and maybe the single event that process that would embody that was the gang of fourteen. when we put together with john mccain i put together six other democrats and six other republ
christian community in southern sudan right outside of cuba. to prepare them for election by bringing in thousands of solar-powered radios so that the folks in that region of the sudan would have information about the outside world in preparation for elections for independence. as you know southern sudan is the newest country in the world. on january 1, 2008, new year's new year's day, at 6:45 in the morning i received a call from john's mother, who informed me that the night before john was killed. he was actually murdered by gunmen while driving home from the british embassy for a new year's eve party in khartoum. john was ambushed by two gunmen who sat in their car, in front of his. john was shot in the neck and the chess. the attack followed warnings by the united nations that a terrorist cell, in sudan, was planning to attack westerners. no one blames the president. nobody attacked the national security adviser. what john's mother wanted was a response from our nation and our community with let's get to the bottom of this so it will never happen again. it's my understanding that
the law has been appropriately written and they can then ratify or reject the decisions that elected officials make on their behalf. now when it comes to most government functions, the public can directly observe the functions of government and the typical citizen can decide for themselves whether they support or agree with the things that their government is doing. american citizens can visit our national forests. we take particular pride in them in our part of of the country, and decides for themselves whether the forests are being appropriately managed. when our citizens drive on the interstate, they can decide for themselves whether those highways have been properly laid out and adequately maintained. if they see that an individual is being punished, they can make judgments for themselves whether that sentence was too harsh or too lenient. but they generally can't decide for themselves whether intelligence agencies are operating within the law. that's why as u.s. intelligence community evolved over the past several decades, the congress has set up a number of watchdog and oversig
powerful. he will say whatever he does is right. congress. they are elected. but they are experts in popularity. believe me, they know popularity. if they did not, they would not be where they are. now, this document gives the same rights and protections basically to the least popular person in the united states has to the most popular. so you are not going to get them to do it often when it is a question of the least popular. that leaves the judges and if you read 78 it's not that he felt that they were so wonderful. what he thought is that is the best choice available so we will give them the power who are they? we don't know, perfect. nobody knows their name, wonderful. they're the bureaucratic types and they do not have the power of the purse or of the sword. so we give them the power to declare what the others are doing is contrary to the constitution and that's the reason we can't think of anything better. it then takes a long time, close to 200 years before that power becomes effective and the thing on it and the study has is the study of slippery and of segregation. why? b
so they can ratify the decisions that elected officials make on their behalf. putting it another way, mr. president, i think we understand that americans know that intelligence agencies sometimes have to conduct secret operations, but the american people don't expect these agencies to rely on secret law. mr. president, i think we understand that the work of the intelligence community is so extraordinarily important -- i see the distinguished chair of the committee, you know, here -- every member of our committee, every member feels that it's absolutely critical to protect the sources and methods by which the work of the intelligence community is being done, but we don't expect the public to infect just accept secret law. when you go to your laptop and you look up a law, it's public. it's public. but what i've described is a growing pattern of secret law that makes it harder for the american people to make judgments about the decisions that are being made by those in the intelligence community and i think that can undermine the confidence the public has in the important work being don
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6